All items: Vicarious liability

In Banks v Ablex Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the claimant suffered a depressive disorder, allegedly as a result of the conduct of a colleague, but failed to establish that a course of conduct had taken place that could be properly described as harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in that she failed to show that the misconduct had occurred on at least two occasions.

In Bernard v Attorney-General of Jamaica, the Privy Council holds that the Attorney-General of Jamaica was vicariously liable for the unlawful shooting of a member of the public by a police constable who was attempting to jump the queue for a public telephone.

In Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 1 All ER 574 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where evidence showed a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the persons in whose care the plaintiff was, the defendants were liable to the plaintiff regardless of which individual was negligent.

The Court of Appeal has held that the Ministry of Justice, which it found had a relationship with a prisoner assigned to do kitchen work "akin to employment", was vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner when he accidentally dropped a heavy sack of food on a member of staff's back.

In Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] IRLR 370 SC, the Supreme Court held that the Ministry of Justice was vicariously liable for the negligent act of a prisoner while he was working in a prison kitchen.

In Fennelly v Connex South Eastern Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an employer was responsible for an assault carried out by one of its employees as it took place in the course of his employment. Judging whether an action is taken in the course of employment requires looking at the job being done by the employee in general terms rather than analysing its component parts.

In Hawley v Luminar Leisure and others [2006] EWCA Civ 18 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that responsibility for controlling a worker passed to his "temporary deemed employer", and it was unsuccessful in its attempt to persuade the court to make a finding of dual vicarious liability.

Get in touch

Connect with us

The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.

Reed Business Information Limited trading as XpertHR is an Appointed Representative of Abbey Protection Group Limited which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.